[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (acoliver at buni.org):
>   
>
> The defined process OSI as an organisation long ago established requires
> as a prerequisite that the user of a licence submit their licences for
> approval.  It does not as a body engage in theoretical examinations of
> licences that _might_ be used and _might_ be evualted _if_ they were
> ever submitted.
>   
Yet this is at least a policy formal or informal that if I were to 
submit a license which prohibits redistribution of source and mandates 
DRM that it would be rejected.  Thus the discussion is appropriate (and 
I would say probably more appropriate than a bunch of hackers discussing 
trademark law).
>> I do not think the present
>> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/attribution.php) goes too far
>> because the unqualified banner means it is no more intrusive than the
>> original BSD licenses.                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>     
>
> Sure it is.
>
> BSD original clause 3 (advertising clause) states:
>
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this * software
> *    must display the following acknowledgement:
> *      This product includes software developed by the University of
> *      California, Berkeley and its contributors.
>
> In the classic BSD spirit, that clause doesn't encumber code usage in any
> way.  In fact, it doesn't even _address_ usage.  The rest of the licence 
> merely allows redistribution and use for any purpose, as long as the
> copyright notice is retained and coder names aren't used to endorse or
> promote products, and on condition that all warranties are disclaimed.
>
>   
A very good point.  The BSD did not force me to have a splash 
screen/banner.  This
forced me to have one.  I did not mean to say the GAP or Exhibit B, only 
the above
referenced linked license which is less intrusive than most of the 
Exhibit Bs that I've seen, granted I don't particularly LIKE it.
> About as far as a reasonable interpretation of OSD #6 (in particular,
> the freedom to reuse in commerce) suggests.  Nicholas Goodman has
> pointed out, in that connection, that "Exhibit B" firm MuleSource has
> recently stated bluntly that its licence's _aim_ is to induce commercial
> users of its MPL + Exhibit B codebase to buy a "commercial licence", 
> instead:
> http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/12/22/badgeware-ceo-to-community-buy-a-commercial-license/
>   
While the euphemism "badgeware" to avoid the connotation of "adware" 
annoys me (it is really the same thing), it is a very good post. 

-Andy